French President Emmanuel Macron Talks Europe’s Role in a Multipolar Future

based on localst energy. Russian guys. We were based on deferend umbrella from the US without any question, and everything now is shaken. China has over capacities and is clearly a competitive place, so it's no more secured place for our exports. Russian war killed locals energy and the killer of our competitiveness today is a big gap in terms

of energy prices every worse. This is why we have to completely change our business and have an integrated energy model, because we can deliver with nuclear and renewables, but not without being integrated and very clearly Afghanistan. Some people are gonna have doubts, and the potential change in leadership in the US means that this is not a guarantee total total.

So this is I want to insist on that because it's super important to assess fairly the fact that our former model is over and this is not a question of act adjustment. This is not the same world twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five. And on top of that, we are making the same mistakes. On top of the key elements I mentioned, we are overregulating and underinvesting. So just if in the two to three years to come, if we follow our classical agenda, we will be out

of the market, I have no doubt. So I think what we have to deliver in the two three years to come is capital market union. My view is that we have to rush on energy beyond what we already decided, which will be implemented for twenty twenty six, which will avoid the big pick and the unstability of the energy

market we had during the past few years. We corrected that, but we have to go much faster and further, and we need this investment shock I mentioned and I think the simplification agenda and the derec let's say pose in terms of regulation, but even the regulation in some issues it's absolutely critical.

I want us to be totally aware of the fact that we are leaving a symmetric shock on our economies whose scale and magnitude is underestimated because the real location

factor is huge. Look at the chemical industry, in Europe completely being relocated because of Irea I mentioned, if you don't deliver the level playing filled agender, we will be super happy with rich as a good regulation for European consumer, but for no more existing chemical industry, and it will be the same for still it will be the same for I mean the existing business we have because of

energy costs and overregulation. So we have to fix energy issue and overregulation and for me the single market and energy and on top of that, diversification of our phoney to reduce this discrepancy and acceleration of level playing field agenda and pose in terms of regulation is critical. And if we don't have the level playing field agenda, we

will be killed in this market. And in parallel, for clean energy and artificial intelligence, we have to invest much more rapidly and protect as well or key players, otherwise they will be relocated in the US.

Rush forward on this agenda? If there isn't that understanding, that same analysis at the top in Germany.

he has been a remarkable European. I remember when you first came. You're actually a chaperd for a while. If I may say that.

say so, mister president, and also in our country. And I think the ultimate problem always in the end, and you alluded to that in the previous round on AI either just to the two or the European industrial policies, that there's still no European answer to many of these things. And if you know, an industrial policy and deregulation and drug report makes that point and is Europe really ready

to give more power? You always also talked a lot about the governance of Europe, and you know the way we are organized with Commission and counsel and very powerful national leaders, and that is a fundamental issue which I think makes it very difficult. But I think this is something which in the end is going to be again a very important issue. So I think that is something which is But I think that the Dragon reports on the common debt, this is where I was getting here.

I think if I may say that, then you're closer, of course than I am. I don't think it is. The problem is not the common debt per se, But I think it is that you want to make sure that the money is spent properly and there's no moral hazard with it. We discussed this long time, many many times. So I think it requires also certain governance. For example,

you think about the Defense Union. I think if you want common debt on the defense, you also need competencies at the European level because you have to have the decision power and the debt really hand in hand. So I think the common debt is easier once you give more of the governance also to the impavement. But that's really a difficult issue. So I would you know, and I think this is an ongoing process, but I think

what you're saying makes sense. But I think in the end, the big disadvantage of Europe is really I mean, i'd be interested in what you think is that we really don't have in many of these areas this European vision which you of anybody has actually he does, yes, but it's not easy in Europe, you know, with and even

if I may say so, if Germany and France. You said on Capitol Market Union in Meserbach, you have a paper which took us I think ten years or something to get a French and a German position on that. Then the question is also is the rest of Europe going to fall in line? That's also an interesting question because they're getting more competent and more confident as well. So the leadership of Germany and France is very very important. I think the only way actually to move Europe forward.

I think that's also your view. But are the others then also in the future more likely to fall in line in terms of moving Europe forward?

makers producing in China with an existing advantage. But it's part of the offshoring production because they produce in much lower cost condition. But on top of that they benefit from subsidies from the Chinese government. This is a bias for your market. I think this is the question is which model do you choose? Do you want to be a consumer or a producer. And now this dilemma we have twenty years ago for solar panels, we decided to kill our markets and we exactly we had the same dilemma.

We did choose. We killed our industry. We had an existing industry, we killed it, and we had we deployed solar panels in a lot of places Chinese once, so we created a dependency which could create some problem. We experience that in COVID time, and we killed the ability to produce on the European soil. It's not a good idea when you need growth and you have to finance such a social model as the one we have now. The question is do we want a fair competition or not.

I don't want a fair competition. So the EU Commission launched precisely a series of studios exchange with all the car makers and just correct the level of discrepancies to establish the level playing field, so you have something from nine to ten for those who are less helped. And I think the range is between twenty one and thirty

five percent tariffs for these car makers. But with evidence and figures which could be which way exchanged with the car makers and will be exchanged with the Chinese industry. We already have retaliation. By the way, I can speak with a clear of you because it's on Cognac, nothing to deal with with with the car and I can tell you that Cognac was never held by the French government,

so which means it is a pure retaliation. But this is a matter of credibility for our market, and I insisted that if you don't preserve the love of the playing field, just don't hope that you want to produce and preserve your industrial foot print in your hope.

And this is a market in other capacities. And if we don't protect but just restore the condition of level playing field, we will be the adjustment zone of the other capacities. Because the US just put a one hundred person tax one hundred person tax undifferentiated, so let's wake up. We live in the same world. You cannot have China over subsidizing a lot of countries, even India and others reacting to these subsidies, the US overreacting by one hundred

person Tife and the odd thing. You're welcome and it doesn't fly. Otherwise we will be happy consumers of non European producers. I can tell you we would have an issue, of course in a few years time.

for me. This is a signal that clearly we have a strategic a much more strategic and geo strategic commission as we wanted then before. But clearly I want to insist in that we are not just a market of consumers and we were used just to behave following these nine and this is not a good idea and we will have exactly the same issue on still industry. I believe that on still industry we are much more aligned

with the Chancellor in Germany. I do believe. I'm sure that on capital market union simplification we are very much online. So I want to insist on the fact that there is a very strong Forcal German alignment. Here is an issue very sensitive for some key players in your country. What I do respect. So the work has to be finalized with European Commission and I'm optimistic. But today and

Arsdrig was right to mention it. We worked very hard with Chancellor shots on these issues and I mean it is very much aligned on capital market union simplification, a bit to invest much more public and private money and as well being much more reactive to protect our still industry or chemical industry. So you have a strong Franco German alignment set.

as the US does and certainly as China does. I wonder if, at the same time as having these tariffs for a level playing field, if you were to support, for example, finally moving ahead with Mercasore, would that send a message to other parts of the world that Europe is still open for business, that this is a specific thing with China, But actually Europe is still very much open to trade deals.

you can come with your food without respecting the same world. Honestly, I I never advocate regulation that I don't understand myself, and I think this is a good rule and don't be naive. We speak about Merco Shore Brazil just imposed tariffs for if It as well, and in the care system. They want to exclude public procurement for the deal from

the deal. They protects themselves, the protect the economies. And my point is just we I think a lot of people in Europe underestimated what happened during the past two to three years. But we had two huge shocks which could completely change our approach. I and war in Ukraine, the end of our energtical model and the end of the WT or order I love Andngzi. I am a

strong advocate of the W two. To understand me, but just for the first time in our recent histories, the US decided not to be compliant with the W two for clintech. But this is two huge change. If we stay and stick to the same policy we are, we have no chance. And just look at the real location of so many industries, so many part of our industries.

a lot of trade dealdering the past few years. I mean set with Canada, with Chinese, Chile, New Zealand and some others, and these one are a good example of those where we integrated the climate change issue because Paris agreements if you implement it, and this is what we decided to do, and I think we're right, it's sustainable if you use the fact that you I mean, we don't use our capacity to put pressure on our partners, given the fact that we are a market on more

than four dred million consumers. But if you decide to push your producers to make a move to be compliant with perase agreement, which I do support, we have to do two things at the same time, not just constraints with milestones and new regulation. You have to invest to help them companies our households and to make the change acceptable and to preserve precisely part of their competitiveness. And at the same time you have to use that to

make it a strategic instrument of your industrial policy. Otherwise you have always to choose between climate sovereignty and an industry. You can reconcile them if you are ready to use it as a bargaining poorer. Don't you think that countries are interested to have better access to the European market. For sure, it's an instrument to create incentives for them to be compliant and have the same level of regulation

than we have on these key issues. Otherwise, I can tell you in the years to come, you will have a majority to stop with the climate change agenda, and people with dismant will dismantle the carbon neutrality agenda for sure, because it's just it is not compatible. And I'm sorry to say that, but in Marcosio it since you have Argentina. When I hear the friend I've got relation with President Milay, but I don't hear somebody with total is convinced by

the climate agenda and wants to deliver. A matter of fact, and two years ago in Brazil we had complete a skeptical guy on climate change. This is matter of fact, So I'm totally in favor of trade. I think we live in an open world. It provided a lot of growth during decades in awaconomy. I think we have. It's part of the change of our own ya. Just wake up bus US and China. They do protect their market, they do subsidize their economy. They do invest much more

than we do buss public and private innovation. So we have to adapt ourselves.

I think many people here will be looking at the time what has happened in the last few months in France, the fragility of the new government under Monsieur Balny, and wondering whether you still have that capacity to push through change. Do you worry that it was a mistake to call that election.

a pension scheme, reform, an immigration reform. I mean, when I look around in Europe, I don't see a lot of countries deploying such a reform agenda. So we were under pressure, and I was very clear on the fact that when you have the far right more than thirty five persons, you cannot follow up during three years to come, because I had three years to come without making a move. But I think you should not see that as a

source of instability. The reaction of the French people was the opposite, because if they had confirmed the thirty five percent for the far right and what a lot of people thought, I would have a far rightists prime minister. Today it's not a case. So what we had for the first time in our history, which is much more the custom in your country and a lot of European country, is a fragmented parliament. Fine, this is less our culture

to have cooperation between the parties. This is my problem, so I'm trying to create this dialectic work between the parties to work together. It's not a natural move, but I'm reasonably optimistic about the fact that reasonable social Democrats, Centrists and reasonable writers can work together for the years to come to deliver strong agenda. And what we have to do is first to preserve and digest all the reforms we delivered during the past seven years, and we

have to deliver more for our young people. We have to complete what we did on apprenticeship to have a better and faster access to the markets. It's one of the key points for the French system to have more growth. We have to follow up what we did on the unemployment system. We have to work on the access to our labor market for senior workers, and we have a lot of sectorial reforms to be launched. We have in France. This is our chance, the ability even with a relative majority,

to deliver these reforms of the parliament. But I think we can create dynamic and I do trust mister Banneer's government to be in this situation to deliver useful reform for the countries. Because the agenda is quite clear. We have to modernize the country. To be part of this agenda, we have to deliver the European scale and at the same time we have to make more effort on social coasion and stability of the country. This is normal in the lifetime of the country after seven years, so I'm

totally elucid about that and optimistic. But I want to focus on the fact that today the key points of the reform agenda for me is at the European scale. I think we put in place a lot of reforms that now we have to deliver, and we have to

deliver in concrete terms. We have less lows to be passed and what points in the pension scheme is for the years to come and it's already voted, but the key elements are to be decided at the European scale, and I think if we want to improve our growth both in Germany and France, for me, the top of

my priority are at the European scale. So this is a sort of reverse agenda if you compare with twenty seventeen twenty twenty, is that today we have to focus much more on how to simplify at the European scale, how to accelerate on the energy market, how to accelerate our financial services at the European skate. So I will indicate much more energy at the skate because this is work. We can unlock a lot of growth and potent shils.

much in line actually with a German debt rule. So there's not that much difference here, and I think it should be it should be applied, and I think, you know, I think generally there's a question of debt in the world. I mean, if you look at the US economy, they're very much you know, over debted and if you look at both sides of the aisle, all of it is more spent, lower taxes, more subsidies, in some cases tariffs,

which are also not going to necessarily increase growth. So I think the problem of debt in the world, I think is an issue, and I think Europe needs to be careful of, you know, having having prudent fiscal rules and stimulus, and I think that's important. But I think I agree with Aman with President Macrant that it is much more of a European issue. I think the future of Europe than it is a domestic French one, as he has done a lot of the reforms when he

became president. I think labor market reforms, many of the things you have done and I don't you know, and I think they're the regulatory are more important than the dead issues.

social model. The main factor of adjustment if you take our balance sheet, I would say is clearly pension reforms and healthcare system. This is a big bunch of where we have discrepancies, and especially as well because in terms of public expenditure we have so we have a social model where it's one hundred person through the budget of all the public administrations. This is why it was a

necessary to pass this pension reform. And I mean the figures and the negotiation we'll see, but probably in the next mandates my successor will have to pass another one if they want to adjust. But the main focus and I put my energy on one point, how to create more activity? Because why did we accumulate so many deficits and debt in the French model. This is because we

never fixed the mass unemployment. And during the past seven years, because of our tax reforms, because our label laws reforms, because our attractiveness agenda, we've been the number one country in terms of attractive net during the past five years, we created more than two million jobs. When we decreased even with COVID, even with the cranins are by more

than two points. Our unemployment rates, so we are a converging and this is the main topic because if we had the same level of activity as Germany, we will don't have public deficits and it's much smarter to look to work on that than being obsessed by a short term adjustment, which is a killer for growth. The top priority of the French economy should be how to be sure that to improve the activity rates of young people because we have I think two to three points less

than Germany. Your system is more efficient we start. When I was elected, we had two hundred and fifty thousand apprentices per year. We have nine hundred thousand. We are converging with the German model. We still have some work to be done at the university to better are located

off of training, but this is a primittee. Second reducing unemployment rate again because we are not yet at the German level, so we have to continue the reforms and improve the rate of access of activity of senior workers because we have two to three points less than Germany as well. And part of the explanation of these points is the fact that we have not the same retirement age. So the key drivers as is ones. Let's be clear. So yes, you need political courage and you have to

be fair with your people. But solution is not to have a short term adjustment by cutting some social expenditure because it's super hard without any agenda, or over taxing, because we don't have a lot of room to maneuver in terms of taxation given the fact that we are number one or two. It depends with Denmark in Europe. Here's the gender.

the government over that. So do you think that there will be opposition, will be an effort to overturn the pension reform.

at least one year time. But I want What I want to tell you is, at first I ask the reality and the pricing of uncertainty by calling for these nap elections. If I did not ask for this election, I could be in front of you and you would tell me, Okay, you cannot go the next you cannot go for election in two and a half years. Look at this course. They are air and they were in a situation to call for a confident vote and force me for a dissolution, and I wouldn't answer. Now we

were bold collectively, I took my responsibility. I asked the firm people, do you want them to go to govern They answered very clearly no. Eleven million of my people did vote for them. So it means that there is anger, fears, and clearly some top priorities that we have to face on security, on social justice on the ground, the situation of poor neighborhood and so on, rural areas and so on. So this is the agenda we will have to fix that.

The government as in front of him, but they didn't give the floor to them, and look at the situation everywhere in Europe. Look at what happened in Austria, look at what happen in Nezerlands, look at what happen in Italy, look at what's happening in a love of Leander in your country. So this is why I'm a strong advocate of EU growth agenda, because this is the only way to give a return to our middle classes. Otherwise this is a killer for them, and this is the only

way to reconcile economy and the reality of politics. But don't you think that having farmers to which you ask for reforms and efforts, and at the same time you explain I will welcome the sawyer been coming from Mercursire is the best way to kill the far right. I can tell you for my country, not at all. And at the end of the day, do you think what

is the priority today for all of us? Delivering growth and political stability, fixing the society of our societies, and convincing reasonable people and our middle classes not to go to the extremes. But let's be clear, didn't we deliver collectively good policies for our middle classes during decades we delivered good policies to have the maximum of exports, the maximum of profits, but they have a feeling sometimes for good reasons. They were the adjustment factor of our economy.

This is why preserving level playing physics not just sacrifying a lot of pieces of our economy where the middle classes work. I try to be consistent.

way to move forward at the Parliament. But this is a very positive one for me, and this is the only one to provide stability and not to be precisely super sensitive to the extremes. At the same time, we need bold reforms and the agenda has to be bold, and the Prime Minister was right to push some key items of this agenda. And I know that a lot of men is us will will advocate for very important reforms from economic, social and and and and and from a first point of view. But for me, we are

just building something. But look at the situation, nothing was sacrificed. Also, reforms are preserved and this new government has to work with parliament and progressively will build consensus. So I'm I'm not naive, I'm a resonantly optimistic, but I think at the same time we have to accelerate to deliver a positive view agenda.

but you're much much more of a politician here. To include them and then to show that they can't govern, I don't think that's the right strategy is also very risky. I think you need to do a good job as a politician and offer and show to the people that it's a good thing. So I think that's but I think that's what you were saying as well.

and financial services. If you clearly deepen the single market, because on this three sectors you don't have an evil single market. It was out of the initial perspective. If you build a single market at the same time, if you alleviate as well as the burdens and the overregulation on healthscare, on some other and there is almost no impact on normal people because you just force people to

adopt the same regulation. It's a lot of noise work and our full session for a lot of technicians and the industry everywhere in Europe, but there is no impact on the normal life. What makes people crazy with your and integration is when just you bother households on their normal life. Which is true, but this is a well

known anecdote. But when you force an olive oil producer to be compliant with such a regulation, when you force to stop this geographical indication in this part of Italy and France to be compliant with this rule, when you force the hunter in one place not to do it

there but to help you allow the other one. I mean this feeling which is the resentment of some part of our population to be blocked disrespected in the way of life by leaders and by Europe, is due to the fact that there is a sort of unadapted approach. We go too much in the ittegrity. So for me, we have to stop over regulating all the details of this way of life and focus on the big issues.

in their day to the life. But it's totally compliant with deepening single markets in the critical areas because there is an impact on them. So my point is, let's focus on the big issues. Let's deepend single markets on energy, teleco financial services, Let's create an actual single market on AI and hydrogen. It's a super agenda for the years

to come. It's already an immense agenda. And let's stop regulating on the nitty gritty and on the daily life for housulds, and we will count on the resentment on the feeding noting nationalism, and we will deliver concrete results.

of change? And I wonder in that context, with the return of Donald Trump as president, help you get some of this is down.

are super loyal and reliable partner. In Ukraine, will it class I don't know, but let's be clear. At the same time, in Afghanistan we didn't have the call before, and in the OCUS did. In Australia, I didn't have the call before, but it's not a reproach. I try to be lucid. The EU is not the priority of the US, and this is why part of the wake up call period of time we are living and part of what we have to completely reshape is our defense

and security strategy. We are part of NATO no discussion, We are stronger lives of the US no discussion, but we have to derisk our model from the US agenda. This is why we have to invest much more for ourselves. We have to create much more European solutions. We have to preserve much more our financing for European solutions. This is the top priority. But what you say is very important, and this is why I try to be vocal and

removed under the pressure of crisis. When they were perceived by our fellow citizens, the financial crisis and the COVID crisis. You are all here, business leaders, political leaders, intellectual leaders. Our responsibility, your responsibility, our collective responsibility if to explain our fellow citizens that this is a symmetric shock for Europe. They don't see now the results and the consequences. But our responsibilities is to pre empt the situation and to

act now. Otherwise it will be a rescue plan in five to ten years time. It would be awkward. And we know the situation. The figures are clear, the trends are very clear. So our responsibility as leaders is precisely to say, okay, we feel the pressure and for me, Europe can make smart moves when we have symmetric shock. During the financial crisis, don't over estimate. We did react, but we didn't take automatically all the right decisions because

it was an asymmetric shock. And we fix this crisis much more slowly than the US because we were precisely divided between north and south. It was a weakness. It was before bunking union and such a level of integration, but it wasn't asymmetric shock, meaning we didn't have the same interest. Today we can have in the nitty gritty some different interests. You are much more invested in car making business. Fine, which creates this kind of discrepancy, but

in reality we are already aligned. Because it's already too late. If I'm fair, it's already too late. So we should be aligned and just look at the situation. Whatever our differences in the energy system could be or industrial system, this is a symmetric shock for the European societies and economies. So we have to precisely deliver this in depth reform on our governance, on security and defense and the growth model.

If just we want to deliver for our people, this is the best way, buys the way to help all the countries precisely to limit and get rid of the extremes because they are just held by the recent amount of people and the lack of collective efficients.